I am an artwork. I am a story. My pages are turning, filling, spidery writing scrawling the beats of my life. I am not finished. I will never be finished.
I am the beat of my heart. My body is the outward expression of my inward journey. Each tattoo strikes with a rhythm of pain overcome and autonomy regained. Strength ever growing and determination building. Beat, and I will overcome. Beat, and I will win.
Betrayed, used, lied to. Physical compatibility belied emotional vulnerability. I was told I must separate, move away from friends. We were fine together, but hate was all I would get from ‘outside’.
I gave my love and he gave his hate, the hate of his friends he said, but the truth was his insecurity. I could be with him. Only him.
I left him. I took back my power, and inked my mark of separation. Chosen image to divide from his potential destruction. Tattoo’d to reclaim my body. I wear a different body to that which he tried to destroy.
Self-inflicted hate of my shape, formed and incepted by those of you who told me I was wrong, defiled by my self-worth. My largesse was gross heresy to the ideal I should be wearing.
I took my self-loathing and drew on it. My design, a decoration worthy of me. Needle stabbing a permanent tribute to my value. I will give invitation-only viewings of the glory of my art, if I judge you worthy of access.
Confident, phoenix arisen. New design, a simple aesthetic in reflection of my passions. A distillation of culture, of history, of curve and of shape, coalescing in perfection on the slope of my back.
I am not your object to mould into submissive perfection. I am my canvas to adorn as I please. Make your assumptions as I make my body my own and my soul dance all over my skin.
I am a member of a couple of CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia) support groups on Facebook. I have many friends who are trained in and offer a range of alternative therapy treatments. I myself have undertaken a course in homeopathy and am a qualified trained reflexologist (with ITEC, although this has lapsed due to physical health issues; I was unable to practice). I understand and support holistic treatments with as wide a range as is possible and proven efficacious (whether placebo or not, placebo can work if the patient believes it will).
One thing I will not put up with and will object to strongly is when complementary therapy is offered as alternative, and conventional medicinal cancer treatments are advised to be ineffective (at best), or to be tools of a profit-driven pharma giant intent on perpetuating damaging health procedures which will kill or make the condition worse (at worst).
This is dangerous. This kills, and has done.* Let me be clear, I am not talking about prevention, but treatment. Living a healthy lifestyle is a good idea, and nutrition, exercise, general maintenance etc. is a positive step. Furthermore, as long as complementary medicines are not contraindicated by scientifically/empirically proven conventional practice, I see no harm. By contraindicated, I mean that some complementary treatments directly affect the efficiency of medication that may be prescribed by doctors/oncologists – for example St. John’s Wort is commonly used to treat depression (and has a proven positive effect, although why is still debated) but will reduce the effectiveness of other forms of medication (in my case, my epilepsy medication at the moment but also some cancer treatments which I will need in the future).
One of the problems of a privatised healthcare system is that it, like any system which has a profit motive at its core, will be treated suspiciously by those who are reliant on its services. The UK is lucky in that at the moment it has the NHS, which provides some protection against a purely profit-driven motivation in healthcare. Capitalism is inherently riven with abuse; we see that in the garment industry with sweat shops, in the sex industry with trafficking, rape and abuse (still called sex work/prostitution by the media which enables abuse to continue, in my opinion), even with the poor and vulnerable in society forced into low-paid work and substandard housing for the sake of more money in the landlord and/or shareholder’s pockets.
Complementary medicinal practice is also profit-driven, a fact which seems to be forgotten. Just as with conventional medicine, this means it is also open to abuse but unlike conventional medicine, there is no registering body or oversight practice which protects those seeking complementary treatments. Especially where there is private/insurance-led healthcare systems, this is open to the con artist seeking to profit from the very real fears of patients and those who care for them, and those who fear diagnosis.
I have read a great many ‘alternative medicine’ posts and watched many videos since my diagnosis 2 years ago. What I find with almost all of them is a lack of empirical evidence or source data from which they are drawing their conclusions. There is a lot of correlation proves causation, and poor pseudo-science written in very convincing language. I have research training to degree level; I am able to discern from the language used and from my own research what is worth following up and what is merely quackery (as I saw one video call conventional medicine, at the same time as state that is what conventional medicine calls ‘alternative medicinal practice’). The citing of historical methods of treatment as being seen at some time as ‘alternative’ is taken to mean current alternative treatments will be accepted as being as effective as already proven treatments available in conventional medicine. This may be true but it is not proven at the current time, despite scientific testing. To state this is to play on the hopes and fears of people who have a disease which if not treated at all WILL kill them. I find this reprehensible fear-mongering.**
There is talk of ‘sources’ and even of murder of alternative therapist providers by ‘big pharma’.** None of which is proven, but when those of us who are living with a cancer diagnosis read this, we are scared. Trust is very important between a patient and a care provider. These articles are deliberately vague but give enough data to be read as very believable. They destroy trust and create more fear. They are very much about ‘alternative’ therapies at the expense of conventional treatment, but not through informed decision-making.
Access to the internet and social media posts has exacerbated this situation. Constant posts even in online support groups can give false hope. The line between conventional and complementary therapies and the seeming inability for conventional medicine to work with complementary therapies doesn’t help. Far more complementary therapists are willing to work with conventional practice than the other way round, and this leaves the patient in a frightening, confusing position. Both need to work together, not pull apart.
Treatment is about the whole body. Complementary therapies are as much about the mind as the body and that is vital in creating an optimum environment in which one can rest, recover, and revitalise. Alternative therapies are about profit as much as they say conventional therapies are. But worse, much worse, is that they kill. All we can do is raise the point though. There is nothing we can do to stop this, and people will die as a result.
It’s immoral, unethical and certainly not an alternative, unless we mean an alternative to life. Don’t take my word for it; I admit I have a bias. I am very much an empiricist; I rely on data, factual information, the scientific method and proven effectiveness.*** I am not a faith-based person, that is not my character. What I ask is that you do your research, go deeper than the links I have provided, apply critical thinking and seek others to help you. Research source information, check out the background of websites you utilise – who are they and what is their motive?
It’s your life. It’s your loved one’s life. Make it a good one.
What is there to say? On the morning of the attack, so many go about their daily routine. Cogs in the engine of a larger machine which itself powers more parts of more engines which fit together with some pushing, some shoving, some square parts in round holes.
We don’t speak the same language, all of us, but we do feel the same emotions; we fear, we love, we panic, we hate, we despise, we care, we comment, we stay silent. We are overwhelmed.
Some of us need to find reasons so strongly we point to the most obvious culprits, without proof, without understanding, but with a fear and desperation to find the catalyst so that we can avoid the same thing happen to us. So we can stay away from the threat, send those who might to other places so we and our loved ones are safe.
Some of us fear the reaction more than the action. We see the hate for people who do not resemble us. The easy targets, little realising that this is how those creators of fear, the terrorists, want us to view those who are not us. We see exiles in our own community, pushed away, segregated by the minority of racists who are so loud, so vicious with their words and actions, segregation becomes a chosen state out of fear.
Fear begets extreme action begets terror; from the racist and from the terrorist, although who can say which is which.
Stronger measures, more checkpoints, but does that create a safer place or a more fearful people? No easy answers, just aching hearts and a desperation that the world is getting smaller but the borders are building higher walls and people are locked into mindsets which become cemented and brittle. Broken and burned by the anger they feel and perceive. The hate we are shown again and again and again in our media tells us we are right to fear the ‘other’. We are right to mistrust, misled into complicity.
Love. I cannot hate because that is a downward spiral which leads to a nation, a world of anger and depression and repression and oppression. To binary positions never to meet and compromise, to exist in complementary ways. To blind faith in oneself above all others.
Love. I cannot blame all those who look a certain way for the actions of such a small group of fanatical extremists. I will not. I should not. I hope not.
Love. It is difficult to love those who hate so strongly, whose aim is to maim and kill and hurt. The target is not just those who are not the same as them, it is also those who are the same as them but who choose to stand up for life and liberty and compromise and co-existence. They may have commonalities but the heart, the truth of the person is so far removed from the fanaticist the fearmongers have more in common.
Love. It is not weakness. It is strength. It is hope. It is the way forward. Love for the survivors, the families of those who are gone, the people affected, no matter where they are from or who they are or seen to be.
Love for people. Love for the future. Love is the one thing I cling to, however hard it may be some time. Teach and enact respect, acceptance, care. Recognise and understand difference, even when we are not shown the same in return. Especially then. Love when it is hard, as well as when it is easy.
The alternative is to hate, and that is the pathway the terrorists take. I will not give them the satisfaction. I will love them too, and pity them for the pain they create and the pain they live in. At least, I will eventually. Probably. I will try.
Because hate is the most damaging of all. My victory will be love. For all. Including you.
At the Royal Festival Hall on the Southbank in London, there has been a week-long festival based around International Women’s Day on 8th March 2016. Brutally Honest Live Art posted an appeal on social media asking for women to take part in an installation where 100 participants write what they want on sandwich boards and then stand for an hour around the Festival Hall. Then wait and see…
Now that intrigued me; quite an experience and a worthy one. I signed up. I had two wants in mind before I even did that; anyone who know me knows events like this are like catnip to me. I must stick my head above the parapet for what I believe. It’s a less a choice, more a compulsion.
I have been thinking about activism a lot, as my disabilities in winter cause increasing pain and a more reduced mobility than is normal. I read complaints that signing petitions is pointless, that no-one pays attention, and I know that physically often that is all I can do. Going on a march, where often it may not be possible to drop out halfway through or the routes are beyond what I can manage, are not always an option for me. I’m not the only one. Invisible in society normally, the protestor with disabilities is not just invisible at protests, but entirely absent
I had conversations with many people as a result of my sandwich board. One lady told me of her mother, now using a walking stick and occasionally in a wheelchair. She told me of the shock and anger she now feels in public, as her mother is shoved and pushed as she walks slower and less steadily than those around her. No apologies, no acknowledgement of her mother’s existence, let alone her humanity.
Another woman came to me almost as soon as I stood still at my spot, stood by me and told me of her book club, where she had had to read some awful old ‘classic’ which she hated, but which left its final words in her conscious. “as he removed her hat and saw all her grey hair, his passion for her died.” The invisibility of the old, so similar to that of the disabled and often for the same reasons. To see that which you fear to be is confronting, but it should invite compassion, understanding and empathy, not fear.
So many other people stood as well, and we moved occasionally to speak with each other and to groups of onlookers. So many photos taken, so many interesting and inspiring stories told and to tell. We just stated want we wanted; openly, honestly, no matter what it was. From a want of publishers, to floor tiles, to being able not to know what you want, to smaller boobs, it was witty and sometimes poignant. All the truth.
I wore the sandwich board for an hour. Once, a man yelled “right wing!” at me, a comment which still has me and possibly him confused as to what he actually meant. Mostly it was big smiles, “I like what you’ve said”, and other positive comments. From other people with disabilities that were visible, the smiles were bigger, the nods more meaningful. The comment I was not expecting, and which still leaves me humbled and grateful, was from an old lady. Small, wrinkled and spare, with long luscious grey hair, she looked at me and said “I really appreciate you writing that. Thank you.”
I did not expect that, but that’s why I did it. I don’t know why anyone else did it but I imagine it is because so often women put others first, we are taught that our wants are secondary and not to be expressed without embarrassment or a feeling of greed. I did it because people are made invisible for so many different reasons and I want to speak up for myself and them. I did it because I could. I did it to tell my truth.
I did it because it is what I want.
Yes, All Women
Because ‘Not All Men’ exists,
And ‘Yes All Women’ inspired ‘Yes All Women Jokes’,
Jokes designed to perpetuate and denigrate.
And self-proclaimed feminists and allies will repeat ‘Not All Men’.
Refusing to understand.
Believing in some way that patriarchy is the act of individuals
Instead of a system of political and social suppression
That has subjugated women for hundreds of years.
Restricting men, from the zenith.
Imprisoning women, from the nadir.
Feminisation is bad.
Masculinisation is good.
We are all in Animal Farm.
Because still the gendering of everything,
Leads to the valuing of nothing.
Female is less, male is more.
Cis is best, trans is poor.
White is good, any other colour is bad.
Insult a man by emasculating him.
Insult a woman by emasculating her.
‘pussy’, ‘bitch’, ‘slut’, ‘whore’.
Homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia,
Racism, sexism, ableism.
So many isms, all divide, all oppress.
And Yes, All Women intersects.
Because 1 in 3 teenage girls* will experience domestic violence
At the hand of their boyfriends.
And think it is deserved.
Because those are the relationships not ‘othered’, despised, rejected.
Straight is okay, straight is not ‘gay’.
Gay is so ‘GAY’.
Because we are electing people who believe gays caused the floods.^
And that disabled people should be sterilised or aborted.
And that marriage between same gender lovers is somehow
Destroying traditional marriage, which has only existed for
A few hundred years anyway. In the UK.
Because skin colour should not disenfranchise, yet it does.
Because our government says Female Genital Mutilation is illegal
Yet in 20 years no prosecution.
Instead deporting mothers and daughter to suffer greatly.
Deporting to a risk of FGM and legal rape union,
(or forced marriage as it is known)
All the better to hide it with.
Pass the buck.
Pass the pain.
Ignore the responsibility.
Let down by the government and the ECHR.
And because I know my white face will be listened to
More than the women of strength such as Leyla Hussein
Hero of the anti-FGM movement.
Because terms such as ‘honour killing’ and ‘sex trafficking’ are used.
Softening the truth of the misogynistic abuse.
Not sex but rape trafficking.
No honour, just religious or familial murder.
Acts of violence against girls and women who did not comply enough.
Stoned to death.
Forced to give birth, legs shackled.
Constant threat of death.
Children begetting children.
Females slaughtered for their sex.
No hope, no education, and murdered for the thought of it.
Valued only for their womb.
Because sex education is all about the physical
And nothing about informed, enthusiastic, updated consent.
And the majority of the how-to comes from pornography.
A pornography increasingly homogenised into ‘same’.
White, nipped, tucked, bleached, shaved, plastic.
Plastic and plasticised.
To be other is to be fetish, not mainstream.
Not being white, able-bodied or straight is deviant.
A deviant sexuality therefore wrong.
Creating fear, entitlement, expectation and pain.
Where there should be strength.
A clear ‘Yes’ and a respected ‘No’.
Because a third+ of all people in this country believe
It is in some way the woman’s fault.
Her responsibility, her provocation,
That causes her rape and her victimisation.
Women and men, combining to perpetuate.
To further the pain.
To remove the right to self-autonomy.
To make it not real, not scary.
Blame the victim, avoid victimisation.
And because and because and because.
Because of course not all men, we know that.
But yes, yes and yes
© Tina Price-Johnson 17 June 2014
Melissa Harris-Perry is a respected and renowned political commentator in the United States, who had a regular slot on MSNBC on weekend mornings, in which political and social events were dissected and analysed. She is a black woman with a doctorate in political science, and currently teaches at Wake Forrest University having previously taught at Princeton, Tulane and Chicago Universities. She is overqualified, some might say, to educate and facilitate discussion in the upcoming United States elections for candidates to stand as President is next year’s election.
She was taken off air as the competition between candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties heated up. MSNBC continues to cover the elections, but an educated, respected, extremely popular, more-than-qualified commentator with a wide following was removed from the screens.
This is the most overtly racist act of a network that I can think of, above and beyond the obvious bias of Fox which we have all come to expect and many of us, perhaps naively, laugh at. They know her worth, her reputation, her unflinching reporting and that she is not afraid to confront issues uncomfortable to those sitting in privileged seats.
The silencing of Melissa Harris-Perry is not funny. It is dangerous and divisive and oppresses a voice that is essential in the political quagmire that is United States politics at the moment. When Black Lives Matters is central to the political process, when black men, women and children, both cisgender and disproportionately transgender identifying, are being murdered in the streets even by the lawgivers who purportedly are there to protect them, the silencing of Melissa Harris-Perry seems to be a complicit acceptance of this status quo and a determination of the media to maintain the murder rate.
When I shared the story on Facebook, I was shocked to be told by one of my friends that I was the only white woman who had shared the news. I now see it has been reported in the UK media but still it seems to be silent on the sharing front. I understand this, because it happened in the United States and it is probably because I am in so many political activism groups and discuss politics a lot, that many of my UK allies will not have seen it. But once they have, why not share? Why not speak out? Why does it always seem to be those who are black who have to be sharing the news?
In my opinion, being an ally means being supportive, stepping back and listening, analysing my own experience and my own behaviour in order to modify it, but it does not mean expecting those who are oppressed to do the heavy lifting themselves. There are loads of white women out there writing about feminism, inequality, intersectionality, but where are the shares of practical experience and highlighting of incidents such as these?
We are complicit in the silencing of Melissa Harris-Perry if we do not speak out about it. We are silencing her as much as the network which took her off air and will only put her back on if she does not insist on the editorial control she had beforehand. Without her voice, black voices whisper. Our complicity in this maintains the ‘angry black woman’ narrative that diminishes the lives and the truths we don’t want to hear because it may unsettle us, it may shake us from our comfortable lives of white privilege.
They have silenced one of the most powerful political black female voices in the United States at the moment. She is an independent voice, not tied to political parties, and that makes her even more dangerous. This is shameful. By silencing Melissa Harris-Perry, they silence millions of women, millions of black people, and if allies don’t speak out, we are giving our silent approval of this act.
And what is worse than this, in the United Kingdom we don’t even have a Melissa Harris-Perry to be silenced.
Since the controversy at the upcoming Oscars with regard to the pitiful representation of people of colour in the cinema there has been open dialogue about the overwhelming whiteness and maleness of the film industry, peaking at white male representation.
The DuVernay Test is proposed as a discussion start for assessing the representation of people of colour (the preferred US term and given the predominance of the United States in film production and promotion and its domination of the film world, the one I am using) in the Western first world; I applaud and support this fully. It sits well alongside The Bechdel Test which is a basic tool for assessing the representation of women in film. Both tests are flawed in that any basic list of rules will require further discussion to clarify the points being made, but both provide an invaluable method of first assessing and developing an understanding of the inequality of representation in film.
“But what about the men?” I hear the disjointed cries of MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) plaintively wailing across the ethernet. “Good point” says I, shocking them so much that they probably fainted in unison, then got up again deeply embarrassed and giving each other pats on the back to pretend it didn’t happen.
I was discussing with my friend James Dudeney, Brotherwife™ to my Sooterkin™ and I. (Brotherwife is derived from a Sci-Fi novel, and makes sense when you know the context). He raised the question of why there is no similar test for men and we agreed it would be a fantastic way of pointing out how the privilege endowed by patriarchy also limits the roles of men, and that this limitation is generally tied to the feminising and devaluing of character traits and/or roles which the genders are expected to conform to. Many an MRA bemoans the stereotyping of the male, which they are right to do, but they tend to blame the victim (women/girls and any intersectional identity a person may have) and attack the symptom, completely ignoring the reality of society and the root causes of the problem.
Men have no need to implement the Bechdel test; films are full of men talking to each other as they make up most of the cast. The DuVernay test will be applicable to men of colour, but not necessarily specific to the patriarchal representation of men. James created a short list that would be useful in addressing the issues specific to men in film. I tried, but it ended up being very, very long due to my inability to STeffU:
The Dudeney Test:
- Do the men in the film talk about anything other than women, sport, cars, or violence?
- Are all their relationships with women sexualised?
- Are they useless in domestic tasks?
- If they share their emotions, or display affection towards other men, are they treated in a derogatory manner, such as implications of femininity or homosexuality?
In and of themselves any of the above topics may not be a negative factor within the film; the context in which the topic is presented can change this, as can the conclusion of the film. I am also not a fan of censorship so would never say these things should not be said. However it is vital that such expressions are given context and do not form the dominant ideology within the film industry. At the moment, they are the mainstream context and are the mainstream ideology and that is damaging to all.
MRAs also, in and of themselves, are not necessary a ‘bad thing’. The website Men’s Rights Activism has recently ended its posting of original articles, but as you see they still promote articles which have intersectional equality at their heart.
Feminism is about ending patriarchal oppression and modern feminism is intersectional; sadly patriarchy itself has led to the majority of MRA sites being dominated by men wishing to maintain patriarchy and blaming feminism for the ills patriarchy creates. However we already have a word for an ideology trying to create equality for all genders; ‘Feminism’.
I believe The Dudeney Test should become a standard starting point to discussions of male representation in film. If MRAs want equality for the men who they erroneously and against all modern research they believe are the oppressed gender, and they claim they do, this test should be applied by them especially, but everyone as a creator and/or member of the audience.
I’m thinking of a list to do with disabilities too, if I can successfully edit myself to a decent length. One day, maybe, a combination of the tests mentioned could be used to try to get fairer representation of all people in the film industry. It matters, especially in family-oriented films. Children learn by example and I want the example to be fair and positive, for all.
Tax avoidance. It may be legal, but is it ethical or moral?
Yes folks, I’m supposed to be writing an essay… Which is why I’m on here😉
Don’t worry, I’ll try to make it quick…
So, Tax*. What’s the point right? Why do I have to keep putting my hand in my pocket just for somebody else to benefit? We’ve all said something similar… Now, don’t tell you haven’t… And don’t go assuming I’m accusing you of being *ist about this… Alright, let me put it this way… TRIDENT. There you go… Why should you put your hand in your pocket (tax for the slow of uptake) just for somebody else (The makers of trident) to benefit?
So, yes… there are areas that lots of people agree that tax shouldn’t be used for… Bombing Syria? Building fences in Calais? Keeping the Royals? Paying MPs ‘expenses’? Building specially adapted homes? (One of those things I really DO believe the money from my…
View original post 1,102 more words
So it looks like this meme is doing the social networking rounds again. On the face of it, it seems quite a reasonable request – who would want to pay someone to sit around and do nothing at all each and every day of their lives when your hard-earned tax money is subsidising it?
That’s not exactly the case though. All this meme does is demonise those who are on welfare benefit, and note the meme does not specify any type of welfare payment, just ‘benefits’.
Furthermore, this person works on an oil rig and therefore works in a high-risk environment surrounded by heavy machinery and the co-workers rely on each other for safety and social interaction. Of course he is urine-tested, as per the private drilling contractor’s work agreement between employer and employee.
Let’s break this meme down:
- Not every worker has to pass a urine test in order to be employed; indeed our elected representatives who run this country don’t have to undergo a urine test to see if they are fit to make decisions which affect all of us. (this is purely for entertainment value, honest: George Osborne. That is all. )
- We ALL benefit from the taxes every single one of us (even those on benefit – VAT for example) pays. So why single out one category of people to force them to submit to urine testing simply to receive enough money to barely live on?
- Some people take drugs to self-medicate, for many reasons including but not limited to as dealing with chronic pain conditions, depression, mental health problems and so on. Subjecting those who are on Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) to urine tests will not help their situation and may exacerbate it.
- Some people take drugs because they like them recreationally. Others drink alcohol. For many, being on benefit is a soul-destroying desperately difficult life and boredom is a massive problem. Why begrudge what little enjoyment they may have? It is their money once they receive it and no-one has the right to police how one spends one’s own money.
- Many people take drugs and/or and still manage to be contributing members of society:
- Many still work full or part-time, so this meme discriminates against those who are unable to work or do not work for whatever reason.
- Those who cannot work at all may still fulfil voluntary roles which are vital to the ongoing care of our society. Is it a coincidence that the poor and more in need you are the more likely you are to volunteer and/or give to charities/social causes? I don’t believe so.
- The amount of one’s tax which goes towards welfare benefit claimants who do not work is roughly 25% of overall tax and National Insurance paid, see graph below. Of that, only 5% goes towards those on JSA. All other payments go on various other benefits, see graph below.
There’s a reason the government changed the name of Social Security to Welfare Benefit. It was not a marketing ploy. This change of wording takes it from a social contract ensuring the most vulnerable are taken care of in our society to a payment given to those whose welfare requires a bit of help but is most definitely not something people should choose to be on and is something to be mildly ashamed of; in the same way ‘receiving charity’ is seen as a superior being condescending to an inferior person in need by many.
Benefit errors due to fraud and/or claimant and/or official error stands at 2.1% and has done so for many years, according to the government’s own statistics.** The statistic is not broken down further, so a generous assessment is 1%. Even so, this meme is not about what one might consider unfair or fraudulent claims, but is about judging the behaviours and policing the lifestyles of unemployed-yet-considered-able-to-work benefit claimants. It is about enacting a policy of discrimination against those who claim benefits in order to survive whilst trying to get back into work.
“Can we imagine how much money the government would save…?” asks the meme. Given the freely available information anyone can research from creditable sources, very little. Assuming benefits are withdrawn for those who test positive, what then? It will not cause an addict to stop using, nor will it suddenly find work for those who were on the benefit and now have it withdrawn. What it will cause is more suffering for the sake of an extremely small amount of money, especially when you factor in the administrative costs of these drug tests. It is possible that it would end up costing the tax payer more than it would save them.
Finally, what about false positives on drug tests? Many over-the-counter medications and even basic foodstuffs can skew the results.***
I’m sick and tired of the demonisation of benefit claimants by the government, and all this meme does is perpetuate that demonisation. Making an assumption about a class of people based on personal unsubstantiated opinion is prejudice. Don’t perpetuate it.
***http://www.medicaldaily.com/drug-screening-6-everyday-things-trigger-false-positive-drug-test-358582 AND http://www.askdocweb.com/falsepositives.html
It seems that Black people in the United States are under siege from their fellow country-dwellers, including those sworn to serve and protect, simply because of the colour of their skin, with gender taken into consideration for those who don’t fit the cisgender male binary.
Islamic people across the world are feeling the necessity of apologising for the behaviours of people they have never met, never spoken with, whose beliefs are not their own and do not reflect even the slightest cursory glance at the Qu’ran. All so their presence will be tolerated.
Women are murdered because of their gender; transgender women at a higher rate than cisgender women for… no reason at all other than fear and hate and self-lack-of-awareness of others. Sexual violence is visited upon them, because of male entitlement and presumed desire for sex at least 95% of the waking day (my guesstimate of the assumption, I hasten to add, but the oft told “every seven seconds a man thinks of sex” came from somewhere).
Non-heterosexual presenting/living people find themselves in fear of being beaten simply because they love and lust in ways that are not aimed entirely at the opposite binary sex.
Violence, whether it be verbal, physical, state-sponsored or the well-spring of some sort of community group or ideology, is the response many receive to their perceived ‘difference’. Instantly memes and quotes pop up across social media and throughout society pleading for tolerance of such difference.
Not good enough, say I.
You tolerate a bad smell, if you can’t do anything about removing the source. You tolerate bad manners, if it would be impolite or impolitic to correct them. You tolerate bad service in a restaurant (especially if you are English, where such politeness is a congenital defect). You tolerate ignorance, if the person is incapable of developing a necessary level of knowledge.
You tolerate bad weather, for goodness sake!
What you do not do is tolerate the innate differences between people. That implies a wrongness about that which you do not like and cannot change, and is one step from actively discriminating against those differences. Tolerance means avoiding that which you do not like, cutting yourself off, forever maintaining the barriers because the difference is not what you like.
It’s not all about you.
Anyone with any form of privilege (which basically means anyone who is identified with and/or identifies as part of a group which benefits from the inculcated positive discrimination within societies) benefits from bigotry. It’s not a choice to benefit, it simply is. The only way to fight discrimination is to actively address it; to listen to the voices of the oppressed and follow their lead and to work to comprehend what exactly it is that they are saying. Men listen to women, cisgender people listen to transgender people, white people listen to BAME people (UK preferred term)/people of colour (USA preferred term), able-bodied people listen to disabled/differently-abled people, heterosexual people listen to those of the spectrum of sexuality outside that definition. Not only listen but actually make the effort to understand and address their own prejudices, which we ALL have, and live their lives every day in addressing this.
Tolerance is for the status quo. Tolerance is for maintaining the prejudices within social norms. Tolerance is for bigots, and for the record, bigotry is not difference of opinion, but an act of discrimination whether actively or passively expressed. Tolerance is always directed by the privileged towards the discriminated against. Really, it is those who suffer under such benevolent tolerated bigotry who are forced to truly tolerate their lot, for fear of reaction.
It’s fine to tolerate things which you cannot change which irk you, but not to tolerate people for their innate differences. That implies a change to those differences would be desirable. It’s incredible how quickly intolerance by the discriminated-against for the toleration of themselves by the privileged will turn that to active bigotry.
Accepting the differences and acknowledging they have NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU and have no effect on your lives, and not cutting yourself off from that difference, is key. Once acceptance is part of your vocabulary and everyday action, then the differences shrink and the idiocy of maintaining discrimination on the basis of those differences becomes unacceptable.
ACCEPTANCE, NOT TOLERANCE.
That is the way forward, and it is incumbent on those in privileged positions to recognise and act on that. Tolerance is a step on the path, but it is not the final destination.
Or stay privileged and keep fighting the existence of difference. Only tolerate that which is not yours to a certain point. That’s why we keep having wars, isn’t it?